1. Joanne Millward complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that Bucks Free Press breached Clause 1 (Accuracy),
Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’
Code of Practice in an article headlined “PICTURES AND VIDEO: Neighbour speaks
out about horror as summerhouse blaze spread to her back garden in Upper
Belmont Road, Chesham”, published online on 21 June 2017.

2. The article reported that a fire, believed to have
started in a summerhouse, had spread to the back gardens of seven properties on
a street. It reported that the fire service had received forty calls regarding
the incident, and included a resident’s comments. The article also included
various pictures which showed the damage caused by the fire, including a
photograph which showed the complainant’s conservatory.

3. The complainant said that the article suggested that the
fire had started in her summerhouse. She said that the article gave a
misleading account of the incident, as the fire had started on another
resident’s property and it was under investigation by the police as a suspected
arson attack. The complainant said that the newspaper should have contacted
her, and neighbours, for comment.

4. The complainant said that the photograph which showed her
conservatory was taken without her knowledge and consent, and that its
publication had intruded into her private life.

5. The newspaper said that the article was based on
information that it had received from the fire service. It said that its
reporter spoke to a resident of the street, and included their comment in the
article. The newspaper had attempted to contact the complainant at her home,
however the reporter was unable to reach her. The newspaper said that following
publication of the article, it received information from the police that they
had received reports that a shed was on fire, believed to be the result of
arson, and that an investigation was taking place. As soon as it had become
aware of this information, the newspaper published a follow-up article
reporting this. The two articles were linked on its website.

6. The newspaper said that the photograph had been taken
from the complainant’s neighbour’s property, with the neighbour’s permission,
and that all of the images were published to demonstrate the damage caused to
the neighbour’s garden, in the context of her account. It said that the
photograph did not contain any private information about the complainant, or
identify her in any way, and that it merely showed her damaged conservatory.
The newspaper said that in any event, the publication of the article, including
the photograph, was justified in the public interest. It said that it is the
newspaper’s role to inform readers of events which involve the spending of
public money, and to hold authorities to account, and that it published photographs
of the premises damaged by the fire, in line with this duty.

7. While the newspaper did not accept that there had been a
breach of the Code, it said that it would be willing to remove the article or
to report the complainant’s position, in order to resolve the complaint. The
newspaper said that it would also be willing to remove the photograph and to
publish the following clarification in the same position where the article
appeared, or as a footnote to the article:

“ON June 21, 2017, bucksfreepress.co.uk published a story
relating to a fire at a property in Chesham. With the story we published
several photographs from the scene, taken from inside a back garden. Two of the
photographs clearly showed a neighbouring property. The view of the neighbouring
property depicted in the photograph could not be seen from public property.
Despite attempts, we did not speak to the homeowner before publication of these
photographs. We would like to apologise to the homeowner for any distress,
inconvenience or upset caused by the publication of these images. We have
removed these photographs from our website.”

Relevant Code provisions

8. Clause 1 (Accuracy)

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate,
misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not
supported by the text.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or
distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where
appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should
be as required by the regulator.

Clause 2 (Privacy) *

i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private
and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital
communications.

ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any
individual's private life without consent. Account will be taken of the
complainant's own public disclosures of information.

iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without
their consent, in public or private places where there is a reasonable
expectation of privacy.

Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock)

In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and
approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled
sensitively. These provisions should not restrict the right to report legal
proceedings.

The Public Interest

1. The public interest includes, but is not confined to:

Detecting or
exposing crime, or the threat of crime, or serious impropriety.

Protecting
public health or safety.

Protecting the
public from being misled by an action or statement of an individual or
organisation.

Disclosing a
person or organisation’s failure or likely failure to comply with any
obligation to which they are subject.

Disclosing a
miscarriage of justice.

Raising or
contributing to a matter of public debate, including serious cases of
impropriety, unethical conduct or incompetence concerning the public.

Disclosing
concealment, or likely concealment, of any of the above.

2. There is a public interest in freedom of expression
itself.

3. The regulator will consider the extent to which material
is already in the public domain or will become so.

4. Editors invoking the public interest will need to
demonstrate that they reasonably believed publication - or journalistic
activity taken with a view to publication – would both serve, and be
proportionate to, the public interest and explain how they reached that
decision at the time.

Findings of the Committee

9. The Committee extended its sympathies to the complainant
for the damage caused to her property.

10. The newspaper was entitled to rely on the material
published by the fire service, and was not obliged to contact the complainant
for her comment prior to publication. The article was an accurate report of
this information and the newspaper demonstrated that it had taken sufficient
care to ensure its accuracy. The fire service said that the fire was “believed”
to have started in a summerhouse and the complainant was not in a position to
dispute the accuracy of this information. The inclusion of the photograph did
not suggest that the fire had started in the complainant’s summerhouse. There
was no breach of Clause 1. Nonetheless, the Committee noted that the newspaper
had published a follow-up article when it was made aware of further
information. The Committee welcomed the newspaper’s offers to report the
complainant’s position, to publish a clarification which included an apology,
and to remove the photographs and the online article.

11. The complainant’s home was featured incidentally in
photographs showing the damage to her neighbour’s garden. The article also
included a close up photograph of the complainant’s conservatory. This
photograph had been taken from the complainant’s neighbour’s garden, and showed
a part of the complainant’s property which would not ordinarily be seen.
However, the article did not name the complainant, or give her address, and the
image did not include any detail that would reveal any private information
about her. The series of images were used to illustrate the neighbour’s account
of the destruction caused by the fire, a matter of considerable public
interest. There was no breach of Clause 2.

12. The article reported on a fire, which was a matter of
public interest, and the newspaper was entitled to report the complainant’s
neighbour’s comments. The article and photograph highlighted the damage caused
to property, not to the complainant. There was no breach of Clause 4.

This website uses cookies that provide necessary site functionality and improve your online experience. By continuing to use this website, you agree to the use of cookies. Our cookies notice provides more information about what cookies we use and how you can change them.